More often than not, I find myself wondering if we have come to a point where all good ideas for movies have been used up, and that everything that comes out nowadays are just rehashes. Of course, there are plenty of instances where this is not true, but then comes a movie like 'Warrior' and shows just how lazy a rehash can possibly get. Not only that, but it also proves that a majority of the voting base on IMDb have the shittiest taste in the world. I mean, this movie got an 8.2 rating. Compare that to a genuinely good movie like Drive, which came out the same year as 'Warrior' and got a 7.8. ranking, and you might come to the conclusion that we are on our way to irreparable stagnation if we give movies like 'Warrior' more credit than it deserves.
Now, I believe that you can make a good movie out of everything, and even though it has been done to death, there is not doubt that the 'underdog'-story is one of the best scenarios. After all, we want to see our protagonist rise to the occasion and go against all opposition; it's an inspiring tale. However, again, this is only ONE scenario, and if you keep doing the same scenario with little to no changes, you run the risk of making a clone of every other 'underdog'-movie. That's why you should always try out new ideas to keep the scenario fresh and interesting.
In many cases, we can see an attempted effort at originality, especially from newer movies. However, 'Warrior' seems content in just recycling as many clichés as possible, not even considering an alternative route in certain regards. In fact, it feels like a Frankenstein's Monster, compiling as many tired story elements as possible in an obvious attempt at getting some recognition from at least one major award ceremony:
It has a family conflict between a father in his two sons: Check.
One of the brothers is a war hero: Check.
The other brother has a wife and three daughters (which serve no other purpose besides being a contrived motivation for the protagonist): Check.
Said brother and his family are on the verge of losing their house: Check.
Both brothers train for a fighting tournament, where there is a big cash prize for the winner: Check.
Both do exceptionally well in the ring, and eventually they fight each other in the finale: Check...
Ugh... there's a lot more where that came from.
I wish I was kidding when I said that there was nothing but clichés in this movie, but I'm not; this is the entire movie! It feels like this entire movie was based on a rejected script from the late 70's/early 80's, which they decided to make now for some reason. For good measure, they even cast Nick Nolte to play the father of the two brothers. Fine, he is a great actor, but he was in his prime during that time period, wouldn't you agree? I mean, what other explanation is there? There is no way that a movie this tired and outdated could have been written in a day and age where we got 'The Intouchables', 'Midnight in Paris', 'The Tree of Life', and 'Drive'. Who funded this movie? Sylvester Stallone?
Also, the movie just looks bad. The cinematography is horrendous, and you can barely see anything. I will say that the best scenes are the fighting scenes, because the bad cinematography complements the hectic nature of organized fighting. They are the best parts of the movie, almost to the point where they redeem the rest of the movie... ALMOST.
Now, let me pull a Quagmire and say that I could forgive ALL of this, if it wasn't so boring. It clocks at over two hours, and during that time, you get ABSOLUTELY NOTHING of substance. That's basically breaking the cardinal sin: you can have as many clichés as you'd like, but you HAVE to make it entertaining.
So, it's one of the worst movies I have ever seen. It gets a 0.5/5